ArticleBMC veterinary research2024
Clinical, imaging and histopathological characterization of a series of three cats with cerebellar cortical degeneration.
Article in BMC veterinary research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Exosomes in Regulating miRNAs for Biomarkers of Neurodegenerative Disorders.Molecular neurobiology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNeurological inherited disorders are rare in domestic animals. Cerebellar cortical degeneration remains amongst the most common of these disorders. The condition is defined as the premature loss of fully differentiated cerebellar components due to genetic or metabolic defects. It has been studied in dogs and cats, and various genetic defects and diagnostic tests (including magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)) have been refined in these species. Cases in cats remain rare and mostly individual, and few diagnostic criteria, other than post-mortem exam, have been evaluated in reports with multiple cases. Here, we report three feline cases of cerebellar cortical degeneration with detailed clinical, diagnostic imaging and post-mortem findings. CASE PRESENTATION: The three cases were directly (siblings, case #1 and #2) or indirectly related (same farm, case #3) and showed early-onset of the disease, with clinical signs including cerebellar ataxia and tremors. Brain MRI was highly suggestive of cerebellar cortical degeneration on all three cases. The relative cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) space, relative cerebellum size, brainstem: cerebellum area ratio, and cerebellum: total brain area ratio, were measured and compared to a control group of cats and reference cut-offs for dogs in the literature. For the relative cerebellum size and cerebellum: total brain area ratio, all affected cases had a lower value than the control group. For the relative CSF space and brainstem: cerebellum area ratio, the more affected cases (#2 and #3) had higher values than the control group, while the least affected case (#3) had values within the ranges of the control group, but a progression was visible over time. Post-mortem examination confirmed the diagnosis of cerebellar cortical degeneration, with marked to complete loss of Purkinje cells and associated granular layer depletion and proliferation of Bergmann glia. One case also had Wallerian-like degeneration in the spinal cord, suggestive of spinocerebellar degeneration.
conclusionOur report further supports a potential genetic component for the disease in cats. For the MRI examination, the relative cerebellum size and cerebellum: total brain area ratio seem promising, but further studies are needed to establish specific feline cut-offs. Post-mortem evaluation of the cerebellum remains the gold standard for the final diagnosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.